Choices and the path to discovery...

I posted these in another thread and they ended up being kind of out of place and off topic so I wanted to repost them here. I've been wanting to bring this up for a while and this is the perfect place to do it. IMO, if you understand that the film is all about what you choose to believe and you enjoy questions better than answers like I do then the film is a masterpiece on it's own with no sequel. If you look hard enough you can find a conclusion that suits you for anything. It may not be the right answer or the truth but it's the one you choose. The path to discovery as far as what I believe all the questions about this film lead has been an amazing ride and it seems it just might never end. If the Scott had in mind making the film what I think he had in mind then then, if he makes a sequel it might answer some questions but it willl give us the same path to discovery that this film did. @Indy John...Of course I don't go into every movie like that. I didn't go into this film or come directly out of it feeling this way either. It took me some time to notice that Shaw's character really mirrors the audience in the respect that it's what you choose to believe. I am an open minded person and maybe you misunderstood my statements or how I feel. I come to this site hoping and wishing that someone will say something that will make me see something differently and push me to change my mind about the way I look at things. In fact, right this second I think my wording for some things may have been a little off. A word that has kept popping up in my mind and in my posts is "path to discovery" and perhaps while the film is about what you choose to believe the long, ever changing path to discovery makes it that much more great. I can't remember exactly where I read or watched this, nor can I remember who said it, I believe that it was a video interview and that it was Spaihts that said it...Anyway, he said that Scott would come in everyday talking about 2001. Mainly the ending. He said that one day Scott would come in and say "I've got it all figured out" and go on to explain only to come in the next day saying "I didn' have it figured out at all yesterday. This is my new theory." and that it went on like that for the duration of time they spent working on the film. Does anyone REALLY know the meaning of the end of 2001 or why what happened happened? Did Kubrick even know? Did he have to make another film to answer all that? Someone else eventually did and Spaihts or whoever it was mentioned this and what he and Scott felt about the approach taken for 2010 The Year We Make Contact. I pretty much can't remember at all what was said about that I just know that he touched on how they felt about it and to my recollection they didn't like the way it was approached. This may shed light onto how a Prometheus sequel may go if Scott is indeed at the helm. My point is that I believe Prometheus to be a lot closer to 2001 than people will either admit or realize. In my opinion, even though there are endless facets and sublots and so forth, the main point of the film is that it's all about what you choose to believe just like Shaw and, much like Shaw started at the end of the film, the path taken to get there. As far as what I said earlier in regards to what to "ignore" in the film I should have said then that you shouldn't "ignore" anything. When I first read about the 36 hour "problem" i did theorize and wonder if there was some reasoning behind it. Now we know that it was not scripted and another mystery has surfaced. Still, like I said before, I doubt that the whatever the reason behind why it was said, it will not have that much impact on the overall story and quality of the film.